With this deal, how can any politician look the electorate in the eye?

On Monday I took the difficult decision to resign as a vicechairman of the Conservative Party. Having studied the Chequers Brexit “deal” I believe I had no choice. The deal in my opinion is not right for the United Kingdom, our democracy, the Conservative Party or indeed the millions who voted to leave the EU.

This “deal” is worse than “no deal” and ironically far worse than a deal – a Canada-type free trade agreement – that European Council President Donald Tusk himself offered, saying: “I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other

free trade agreements, it should address services.”

Instead of exploring this perfectly acceptable solution a small cabal in Downing Street has dreamt up a complex arrangement that seeks to recreate large parts of the EU’S single market. This comes with serious costs. Accepting a “Common Rule Book” sounds innocuous but means accepting EU rules over the regulation of our domestic economy with no say.

Being subject to EU laws and ruling will have major consequences for our external trade and prosperity. If we have to conform to the letter of EU law we would be unable to import goods from other states that we recognise have equally high standards but different laws. In briefings I was told Parliament could still change these laws if it wished but there would be unspecified “consequences”. This replicates the key problem with the EU, a fig leaf of sovereignty covering

the modesty of EU vassalage. We would taking dictation from Brussels.

It is worth dwelling on the “consequences”. A reduction of market access certainly, but it could be worse. The Government previously and recklessly acquiesced to an EU demand for a Northern Irish backstop. Essentially if the “deal” does not preserve the free flow of goods across the Irish border then the EU could insist on keeping Northern Ireland in the EU’S customs and “regulatory area”. If changing our laws led to the disruption of the free flow of goods we could never in practice diverge from EU law without splitting our country in two. This deal strikes at the heart of the integrity of the United Kingdom with perilous consequences.

Then there’s the fact that this “deal” will be bad for our democracy. The vast majority of my fellow MPS voted for the referendum, accepted the result and voted to notify the EU we were leaving.

If we end up leaving in name only, accepting EU rules over which we have no say, collecting EU taxes and have the threat of a backstop hovering over us, how can politicians look the electorate in the eye and say we respected their decision? Big corporate lobby groups congratulating themselves on this wheeze should consider whether this is really good for the country and them.

Next, this “deal” (it’s nothing of the sort, it’s an opening bid, which we’ll just surrender more of later) will be a disaster for the Conservative Party. It is clear to me that it’s not supported by a substantial body of Conservative MPS and a larger proportion of conservative members, activists and voters. Maybe the officials in Number 10 feel this is not a concern as Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPS will carry the deal forwards against Conservative opposition. This is the logic of the madhouse. If the plan is to split the Conservative Party the precedents are

there: Peel put the Conservatives out of office for a generation, Maastricht did the same. This is not a luxury the Party can afford with a Corbyn Government in the wings. I am not a rebel: far from threatening the PM the way a handful of colleagues selfishly

‘While I did not expect my loyalty to be rewarded, I did not expect it to be treated with contempt’

have ever since the country voted to leave the EU, I loyally supported her. While I did not expect my loyalty to be rewarded, I did not expect it to be treated with contempt.

The tragedy is that it was perfectly avoidable. The EU has the option of a Canada-type zero tariffs trade deal with additions where necessary. The Brexit Department had a White paper

setting out customs proposals to facilitate trade over the Northern Irish border. Why were these ideas pulped?

We are told by William Hague, the former Foreign Secretary, that a Canada deal was only possible with a Northern Irish backstop. He tells us we need to accept there is a majority in Parliament for this deal. This is self-serving nonsense. The UK and EU have both said they will not build new infrastructure on the border.

It is two years since we voted to leave the EU. We have discarded a workable agreement from the EU but accepted nearly everything else. As Conservatives and Unionists we are now asked to take a vow of omerta while our Government brings forward a sub-par negotiating hand which will be further chipped away. I cannot remain silent. We need to keep faith with our voters, our democracy, the Conservative party and the country. Maria Caulfield is MP for Lewes